Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland

By Emmi Lehtonen, J. Kuuluvainen, E. Pouta, M. Rekola, C. Li. 2003

180 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7333849ba66a5146e52f88db517f6847ddb20e61

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study (2007, background): “This is an often-encountered situation in environmental valuation (see, for example, [6,49]), which results in nested logit models providing a better fit than conditional logit models.”
Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity (2015, unknown): “In the Species category, only those studies have been included whose authors specifically mention that they use rare/threatened/endangered species as proxy for biodiversity (e.g., Jacobsen et al., 2012) 5 .”
Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys (2014, result): “According to Lehtonen et al. (2003) and Scarpa et al. (2005) who find similar results, this would be consistent with a 16 Table 5 only reports the results obtained in model 1 for the OOR sample.”
What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity (2008, background): “Jakobsson and Dragun 2001; Lehtonen et al. 2003 ).”
Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment (2005, background): “…have found theoretical reasons for status-quo bias (Samuelson and Zeckhauser 1988; Haaijer 1999; Haaijer, Kamakura, and Wedel 2001), and choice experiment applications in environmental economics (see, e.g., Lehtonen et al. 2003; Kontoleon and Yabe 2003) found these effects to be significant.”
Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation? (2009, methodology): “Focusing on differences in stated preference methods, differences are found between Contingent Valuation (CV) and choice experiments (Riera et al. 2008; Boxall et al. 1996; Hanley et al. 1998a,b; Lehtonen et al. 2003) and between the different formats in CV—for example, between dichotomous 123”
Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments (2008, background): “…for status-quo bias (Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988; Haaijer et al., 2001), and discrete choice experiment applications in ecological and environmental economics (see, for example, Lehtonen et al., 2003; Kontoleon and Yabe, 2003; Scarpa et al., 2005) have found these effects to be significant.”
Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates (2007, background): “A number of comparative studies of CV and CM can be found in the literature (Boxall et al. 1996; Adamowicz et al. 1998; Hanley et al. 1998a; Stevens et al. 2000; Lehtonen et al. 2003; Bateman et al. 2006).”
Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity (2009, background): “Lehtonen et al. (2003), for instance, who also conducted a CE on forest development, report that around 15% of their respondents always chose the SQ.”
Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently? (2009, background): “Numerous studies in the environmental economics literature have found empirical evidence supporting the above ’status quo’ effects (see for example Lehtonen et al., 2003; Kontoleon and Yabe, 2003; Mogas et al., 2006; Scarpa et al., 2007a), whilst Scarpa et al. (2005) have tested a number of…”